Introduction

Teachers are at the heart of tertiary education. Their expertise, role as facilitators and mentors, research contributions, and ability to build relationships in the community play a crucial role in shaping students’ academic and professional development. Many institutions include rhetoric—often through mission statements and strategic plans—around quality education and the importance of investing in the development and wellbeing of teaching staff (Cortés Sánchez, 2018). To invest in and prioritise the needs of tertiary educators, several components are necessary (e.g., Kleijnen et al., 2014). There must be a culture of open communication within the institution, in which senior management actively seek educators’ input and take appropriate actions based on their feedback. There must also be high-quality resources, support, and professional development opportunities that align with educators’ needs can also contribute to their job satisfaction, professional growth, and ultimately enhance the teaching and learning (T&L) environment. Unsurprisingly, tertiary educators struggle when their day-to-day needs are unmet and their opinions are not heard (and acted on) by senior management.

Such struggle is pronounced in times of abrupt, systemic change. This is most evident in emergency management situations where strategic decisions made by senior leadership teams impact staff and students across the tertiary education sector. In response to COVID-19, tertiary institutions around the world have made emergency management responses to support online delivery options for students (e.g., Crawford et al., 2020; Pather et al., 2020). Effective leadership is essential during times of uncertainty (Ahern & Loh, 2021; Fernandez & Shaw, 2020), and many institutional senior leadership teams have focused their attention on the digitalisation of tertiary education and its opportunities. Tertiary institutions may see digitalisation strategies as beneficial in at least three ways: (1) to better reflect how (some) students want to learn and, therefore, improve student success, (2) to advance students’ digital skills and improve their employability, and (3) a financial advantage that online T&L can take place in a more cost-effective, time-effective, and scalable manner (see Webb et al., 2021). These assumptions, however, can be flawed. For instance, online T&L is not necessarily equivalent to on-campus T&L in terms of curriculum, instructional approaches, and learning effectiveness (Fawns et al., 2020). Not all tertiary students are technologically savvy (Losh, 2021), and online T&L is not necessarily more cost-effective than using resources in the physical classroom (Reed, 2019). Without “boots on the ground,” decision-makers may fail to understand the complexities of online T&L, including what a successful shift would require and whether such a shift should occur in the first place. Meanwhile, emerging research has examined students, their learning experiences, and attitudes toward online education (Bolumole, 2020; Eri et al., 2021), but comparatively less on teachers’ perspectives. Alas, educators may find themselves wedged between what the institution and students want, neither of which may consider feasibility, staffing, and–above all–good educational practice.

The current research focuses on these challenges faced during COVID-19. Although the immediate effects of COVID-19 on the tertiary sector have attenuated in recent months, it is vital for tertiary institutions to be prepared, resilient, and responsive to future public health and environmental emergencies (e.g., Izumi et al., 2021). Such planning allows institutions to address access and equity concerns, facilitate flexibility and adaptability, foster remote collaboration and communication, and support rapid response and recovery efforts. By embracing online T&L, institutions can effectively navigate disruptions and ensure that education remains accessible and high-quality during challenging times. This study aimed to provide tertiary educators in Aotearoa New Zealand with an opportunity where they could anonymously share their experiences, needs, and attitudes toward online T&L. The research took place in mid-2020, one semester after the first of several government-imposed lockdowns that required a shift to fully online T&L in response to the COVID-19 public health crisis. We explored educators’ confidence (i.e., teacher self-efficacy) when teaching online and on-campus, their current attitudes toward online T&L, and what they would need for effective online T&L to occur in the future. Allowing tertiary educators to voice their opinions about online T&L may contribute to quality improvement, foster adaptation and innovation, and encourage collaboration and professional development. We believe educators’ valuable insights and experiences can shape and enhance online T&L practices and the tertiary sector, leading to a more engaging and effective learning experience for students.

Teacher Self-Efficacy (TSE) in Tertiary Institutions

TSE is a context-specific belief about one’s teaching ability and what one can accomplish given environmental resources and impediments (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). TSE is more than one’s perceived ability to instruct: it also involves one’s ability to adapt education to individual student needs, motivate and support students, and manage the learning environment (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007). Across the education sector, TSE contributes to an educator’s motivation and well-being (Zee & Koomen, 2016), including how individuals respond to educational challenges, including the use of digital materials (Ma et al., 2021). Indeed, there are profound differences between face-to-face and virtual classrooms (Rice, 2006), and such differences may accompany intra-individual variation in the self-efficacy beliefs of educators.

TSE is instrumental to effective online T&L. Corry and Stella (2018) expressed that it is not enough for online educators to feel confident in their instructional abilities and practices: they must also possess beliefs in their abilities to design and implement effective approaches to online instruction. Therefore, in the context of online T&L, self-efficacy is essential because it determines the teacher’s confidence in utilising online platforms, technologies, and instructional strategies (Klassen & Tze, 2014). When educators have high self-efficacy, they approach online T&L with a positive mindset, which may impact their motivation, engagement, and perseverance in overcoming challenges (see Kaqinari et al., 2021). They may also be more likely to embrace changes in T&L delivery and exhibit greater adaptability and flexibility in their teaching practices. They may be more willing to explore and experiment with various online tools, learning management systems, and multimedia resources to create engaging and interactive learning experiences for their students. This resilience positively impacts their instructional effectiveness and ultimately benefits student learning outcomes. Accordingly, high-quality professional development must be available to educators (Horvitz et al., 2015). As tertiary education moves beyond emergency remote teaching, TSE beliefs are essential to effective strategic planning. We argue that such research involves a thorough inspection of not only TSE for online settings but also the degree to which these beliefs differ for on-campus settings.

Views on Online Teaching & Learning (T&L)

Tertiary educators’ beliefs in their ability to support students are presumably linked to their attitudes and needs toward such a teaching mode (Klassen & Tze, 2014). In the current research, we focus on attitudes toward online T&L both in general and for their particular disciplines. We consider educators’ attitudes toward their respective institutions in terms of adequate support during the forced shift to online T&L in 2020. This incorporates dialogue around what educators think about online T&L and what they would need for effective online T&L.

Attitudes Toward Online T&L

Tertiary teachers’ attitudes toward online T&L can vary based on their individual experiences, preferences, and circumstances. Some educators, for example, have embraced online T&L in the wake of COVID-19 (Kaqinari et al., 2021). They have shown enthusiasm, recognising the potential online T&L offers for innovative pedagogical approaches and increased flexibility. These educators may appreciate the opportunity to experiment with new technologies, multimedia resources, and online collaboration tools to enhance student engagement and learning outcomes. These educators show adaptability by acquiring new digital skills and exploring effective strategies to deliver quality education in the online environment. Indeed, educators with a more positive attitude and a learning-focused goal orientation during the shift to online T&L tend to have greater instructional quality and better staff well-being (Daumiller et al., 2021).

Other educators may approach online T&L with reservations and concerns (Kaqinari et al., 2021). They may feel apprehensive about the perceived limitations of online platforms in replicating face-to-face interactions and the loss of non-verbal cues in student–teacher communication. Educators may worry about maintaining student motivation and engagement, ensuring academic integrity, and providing personalised support. What distinguishes an educator from an online search engine is the social dynamic through genuine relationships, dialogue, critique, and the development of thought through interaction with experts which lies beyond what was pre-defined by the curriculum or syllabus. This is not to say that all online T&L platforms lack the potential to build meaningful relationships in tertiary courses! Rather, it is the attitude that one is losing their cherished role as an educator—constrained and limited in their ability to support their students–that might solidify particular views on online T&L (Cutri & Mena, 2020). Furthermore, some educators may feel as though there is a profound shift in their roles from on-campus to online settings. Online T&L generally calls for more operational and managerial activities for educators (Martin et al., 2019), and this may lead to frustration (Trinidad, 2020), concerns related to workload management, technological issues, and the digital divide among students.

It is perhaps more likely that tertiary educators hold a mixed, more nuanced attitude towards online T&L. Some individuals acknowledge the advantages and opportunities it presents while recognising the challenges and limitations (Lister et al., 2021; Saha et al., 2022). Particularly in the shift to emergency remote teaching during COVID-19, it is important to acknowledge that individual attitudes can evolve over time as educators gain more experience and receive support and training in online T&L. Additionally, attitudes can differ among teachers even within the same institution or discipline. Understanding and addressing these attitudes is crucial for institutions to provide appropriate support and resources to foster effective online T&L practices. As such, senior management must have an accurate understanding of educators’ attitudes toward online T&L. This is necessary for several reasons, including an effective relationship to be built and maintained between senior management and educators. Without open dialogue, pushing online T&L approaches onto reluctant teaching staff may result in tension that reduces instructional effectiveness, staff wellbeing, and student outcomes. In the current research, we asked tertiary educators whether their institution should increase online T&L delivery options. This message can be easily misconstrued, however, as it is easy enough for institutions to increase online delivery options and then also decrease on-campus delivery options. To ensure that tertiary educators’ opinions were interpreted accurately, we explored both attitudes.

Appropriateness of Online T&L

Attitudes toward online T&L are context-driven, and tertiary educators from different academic fields can have specific attitudes toward the appropriateness of online T&L in their discipline (Saha et al., 2022). For example, educators in disciplines that heavily rely on theoretical knowledge and lecture-based instruction, such as social sciences, humanities, and certain areas of natural sciences, may find online T&L more appropriate. They may perceive online platforms as suitable for delivering lectures, sharing course materials, and facilitating discussions. These disciplines often prioritise content delivery and conceptual understanding, which can be effectively accomplished through online resources and asynchronous discussions. Meanwhile, tertiary educators in disciplines that require hands-on experience, practical training, or laboratory work (e.g., engineering, fine arts, or medical sciences), may initially view online T&L as less appropriate. For example, medicine and nursing require students to develop psychomotor skills and communication approaches that call for a face-to-face environment (Vandenberg & Magnuson, 2021), and attempting to perform and assess clinical skills can be difficult and frustrating (Nabolsi et al., 2021). Similar challenges have been voiced by educators in other disciplines, such as chemistry, physics, and engineering, where laboratory activities require students to gain hands-on experience with technical equipment (Habib & Parthornratt, 2020). Although there are creative solutions (e.g., virtual simulations, remote labs, or blended learning approaches), some educators may have concerns about the limitations of online platforms in providing the necessary practice and the inability to replicate in-person interactions. In the current research, we assume that educators’ attitudes about the appropriateness of online T&L are paramount in understanding their online T&L experiences, TSE, attitudes, and needs.

Needs for Effective Online T&L

The forced shift to online T&L during the public health crisis put into the limelight several issues about what educators need. One issue pertains to the need for quality teacher development. Researchers have shown that professional development, especially when delivered through online platforms, can increase TSE for online courses (Corry & Stella, 2018). A second issue involves staff workload. Online T&L can consume a lot of time, and the labour that educators put forth to support their students may not be fairly recognised in staff workloads. This is problematic in research-intensive universities, where (unidentified) course-related time can eat away at research responsibilities (Bussmann et al., 2017). There is a global need for educational institutions to measure what it takes for effective online T&L to occur, from initial idea to implementation and evaluation. A third issue relates to the need for adequate resources, including hardware, software, and technical support. These resources also include a need for equipment to be user-friendly, accessible, and reliable (Dinc, 2019). A lack of such resources is a barrier to educators’ positive attitudes toward online T&L and technology integration (Keengwe et al., 2008).

Tertiary institutions that listen to educators and meet their needs for effective online T&L (e.g., development, time, and resources) can empower their teaching staff. When such needs are unmet, staff reluctance and pessimistic attitudes toward online T&L may emerge (Hodges et al., 2020; Vlachopoulos, 2020). Higher education institutions worldwide have documented considerable increases in employee stress, burnout, and turnover due to COVID-19 (Winfield & Paris, 2021). It is also noteworthy that higher education teaching staff who struggle to shift to emergency online T&L are more likely to report well-being difficulties and greater rates of burnout (Virtanen & Parpala, 2023). Addressing the experiences of teaching staff during COVID-19 is essential for their mental health, teaching effectiveness, student learning experience, retention, organisational culture, and the overall success of tertiary institutions across Aotearoa New Zealand. By providing adequate support and resources to teachers, institutions can create a resilient and nurturing environment that fosters their wellbeing and enables them to thrive professionally.

The Current Study

The future of tertiary education grapples with the opportunities, affordances, and limitations of online education. For some, the expansion of online T&L is regarded as a revolution that should be progressed; others are more cautious, questioning the implications of online T&L in terms of educational equity, social justice, and purpose (Assunção Flores & Gago, 2020). The unprecedented, rapid changes in the tertiary sector highlight a need for high-quality research and recommendations in universities, polytechnics, and other tertiary institutions. The purpose of the current study was to provide an opportunity for educators across Aotearoa New Zealand tertiary institutions to anonymously share their online T&L experiences, beliefs, attitudes, and needs. This dialogue was intended to create opportunities that promote openness, identify common challenges, enable tailored support and resources that may be unique to the Aotearoa New Zealand context, encourage collaboration and knowledge sharing, and support continuous development and adaptation.

Our research questions were:

  1. (1)

    To what extent does intra-individual TSE differ between online and on-campus settings?

  2. (2)

    What are educators’ current attitudes toward online T&L in terms of its discipline-specific appropriateness and systems-level change in the tertiary sector?

  3. (3)

    What would teaching staff need for successful online T&L to occur, including professional development, time, and resources?

  4. (4)

    Are there meaningful associations among tertiary educators’ TSE, attitudes toward online T&L, and needs for successful T&L?

Materials and Methods

Participants and Procedures

Our sample comprises 245 educators from 16 tertiary institutions in Aotearoa New Zealand. Participants’ self-reported gender was female (63.3%), male (33.1%), and gender-diverse (0.7%), with an option “prefer not to say” (2.9%). The average age of participants was 49.44 (SD = 10.65). Participants were working for either a university (65.3%) or an institute of technology (34.7%). Most participants were on a full-time (84.5%), continuing/permanent (85.3%) employment contract with their institution. Participants were from a wide range of subject disciplines: Medical Professions (21.3%); Arts and Humanities (20.0%); Business and Law (16.3%); Social Sciences and Education (15.8%); Engineering and Construction (11.3%); Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Computer Science (10.4%); Other (4.9%).

Participant recruitment began by contacting administrative and senior leadership teams at all universities, institutes of technology, and wānanga (i.e., a public tertiary institution that provides education in a Māori cultural context) across Aotearoa New Zealand. Key contacts were asked to share our recruitment invitation through staff email, and participants were invited to share our recruitment invitation with colleagues who might be interested (snowball sampling). Data were collected between August and December 2020. Participants completed an anonymous, 20-min online questionnaire that asked about their experiences, needs, and attitudes toward online T&L.

Instruments

Teacher Self-Efficacy (TSE)

To measure tertiary educators’ beliefs about their personal teaching ability for both on-campus and online T&L delivery approaches, we created a nine-item, seven-point Likert-style scale that would be suitable to the population of interest whilst remaining aligned with academic literature (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007). The items were designed as a brief measure of tertiary educators’ perceived abilities to plan, organise, and carry out activities in their respective courses. We included items that align with governmental and institutional priorities that are culturally sensitive within the tertiary education sector of Aotearoa New Zealand. For instance, “I am able to build and nurture a supportive, caring environment” was designed to capture the competence-driven expectation for good practice to include pedagogical principles of manaakitanga (ethic of care). Another item, “I am able to develop a positive bond with most students,” was designed to capture whanaungatanga (building relationships). Each item was written in a way that could be transferred from on-campus to online T&L settings. This effort was taken to reduce potential reliability and validity issues that can occur when items are administered between contexts.

Participants were invited to consider their experiences when teaching on-campus and rate the degree to which they agreed or disagreed with each statement. Responses and scaling ranged from (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree. Next, participants were encouraged to consider their experiences when teaching online. They were asked the same questions with the same scales. To explore the validity of TSE among the nine items, we performed exploratory factor analysis (EFA) in SPSS version 25 software. We inspected the data for dimension reduction based on participant responses to the on-campus setting, and completed our analysis using maximum likelihood (ML) estimation and oblique rotation. Two factors emerged with eigenvalues greater than one: Factor I (4.37, 48.55%) and Factor II (1.04, 11.53%). Total variance explained by the two factors was 60.09%.

Based on the pattern matrix (see Table 1), six items were associated with Factor I. Each item satisfied conventional factor loadings above the threshold of .40, with no items less than 0.56. Each of these items referred to social elements of teaching and learning; thus, we labelled Factor I “TSE: Social.” Estimation for internal consistency was acceptable (α = .84). Factor II comprised three items. The factor loading for the item referring to an organised and well-structured learning environment (.38) was below the conventional threshold; however, internal consistency was acceptable (α = .72). Each of these items referred to operational elements of teaching and learning; thus, we labelled Factor II “TSE: Operational.”

Table 1 Results of the pattern matrix based on an exploratory factor analysis using items for TSE according to on-campus responses (n = 245)
Full size table

Attitudes Toward Online T&L

To explore participants’ attitudes toward online teaching, we included three, seven-point Likert-style items aligned with current global shifts in tertiary education. The items ranged from (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree. The first probed general opinions about expanding online T&L (“My tertiary institution should expand its distance-based options for students”). The second question was more nuanced and was asked due to international trends for tertiary institutions to reduce their in-person courses on a longer-term basis (“My tertiary institution should expand distance-based options and reduce campus-based offerings for students”). The third question focused on the appropriateness of online T&L (“Distance-based modes are an appropriate means of teaching (or working with students) in my discipline or workplace unit”). Participants were encouraged to provide open-ended comments on each question.

Educators’ Needs for Quality Online T&L

We included three, seven-point Likert-style items that revolve around what educators might need for them to be able to prepare quality online T&L. Participants were asked to rate the degree to which they agreed or disagreed with each statement, using the same scaling above. Items focused on training (“I have enough training to prepare quality online learning experiences”), time (“I have enough training to prepare quality online learning experiences”), and resources (“I have enough resources/support to prepare quality online learning experiences”). Participants were encouraged to provide open-ended comments on each question.

Analysis Process

First, we inspected descriptive statistics concerning the nine TSE items. This included mean scores and standard deviations as well as paired-samples t-tests to evaluate the degree to which participants’ self-efficacy beliefs differed between on-campus and online settings. Second, we inspected descriptive statistics concerning students’ attitudes and needs, and then inspected the open-ended items that corresponded to these six scale-based items. We analysed the open-ended responses by reading all comments multiple times so that the first author could gain an understanding of the obvious and manifest interpretations underlying the text. Next, for each open-ended item, we identified themes that described and added richness to participants’ accounts and context. Participant commentaries (and the relevant themes) were quite straightforward in response to the guided items. Third, we performed bivariate correlations to examine associations amongst the variables of interest.

Results

Descriptive Statistics of TSE

In Fig. 1, we present the mean scores obtained for the TSE items according to on-campus (solid bars) and online (patterned bars) T&L settings. As shown, participants in this sample were very confident educators when teaching on-campus. On average, they felt as though their particular strengths were developing a positive bond with students, developing valid and reliable assessments, and creating an organised, well-structured learning environment. When teaching online, however, participants were far less confident across the board. They felt the weakest in their abilities to facilitate student collaboration and create a flexible, spontaneous learning environment. The largest campus-online discrepancies involved encouraging student collaboration, fostering teacher-student relationships, and creating a flexible, spontaneous learning environment.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Histogram of tertiary educators’ TSE beliefs for on-campus and online T&L

Full size image

Next, we present mean scores and standard deviations according to the TSE factors identified in the EFA results (see Instruments). As shown in Fig. 2, participants were weaker in their ability to promote a supportive social environment when teaching online (M = 4.33, SD = 1.39) than on-campus (M = 6.30, SD = .60). They were also weaker in their ability to perform operational activities in when teaching online (M = 5.47, SD = 1.24) than on-campus (M = 6.44, SD = .55). Considerable differences were supported based on the statistical analyses for both TSE: Social; t(244), 22.85, p < .001; and TSE: Operational; t(244) = 13.34, p < .001.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Histogram of tertiary educators’ composite TSE factors for on-campus and online T&L

Full size image

Examining Attitudes Toward Online T&L

Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics for the items designed to capture attitudes toward online learning.

Table 2 Descriptive statistics of teachers’ attitudes toward online teaching (n = 245)
Full size table

The open-ended comments associated with these six items yielded six key themes. These are listed below with representative quotes for each.

Online Teaching & Learning (T&L) as an Opportunity

Participants articulated the strengths and opportunities of online T&L, offering examples that highlighted greater accessibility to tertiary education, improvements to student learning, and fewer negative effects on the environment.

Online T&L has proven it can be done effectively with enough care and thought. Online T&L can also drastically enhance the learning experience. I would support an expansion of online T&L, particularly as a means of reducing environmental impact. [Participant 263, Law]

Online learning offers the opportunity for students who are widely dispersed to take courses that might not be available at the university that they can physically attend. It reduces the whole waste of money spent on halls of accommodation and students renting in high-rent markets, etc.” [Participant 98, Humanities]

Online T&L as a Temporary Solution

Many participants saw online T&L as an adequate short-term solution to the current public health crisis and its impact on financial constraints in the tertiary education sector. However, they added that institutions should evaluate the effectiveness of online T&L pedagogies before widespread changes are put into place.

Clearly in the post-COVID, money-tight world, the university is now in love with remote teaching since it might save money. But it’s not great, pedagogically, for many disciplines: anything that requires making and learning by watching others act, do, or make. I agree some subjects might be ok for it, if done by experienced staff for specialist cases. But across the board? No. [Participant 64, Creative Arts & Industries]

On-campus teaching is much superior to distance teaching in providing a quality education to students. Nevertheless, I strongly agree that distance-based options should be expanded, simply to buffer the financial losses somewhat that universities are going to experience. [Participant 60, Agriculture]

Online T&L: Yes, But Not at a Loss of Campus T&L

Participants explained that institutions should expand their online options for certain students and courses, but this should not occur through the reduction of on-campus offerings.

We need both [online and on-campus teaching], and I’m absolutely delighted that we’ve been forced to completely re-think and re-structure our courses in light of the currently required dual delivery. Our teaching has never been so inclusive and our priority learners are doing far better than in previous years, and this is something I will always retain. Having said that, it doesn’t work for everyone (including me) and expanding our distance offerings should in no way come at the cost of reducing our campus-based face-to-face and personal learning and teaching experience. [Participant 135, Business & Management]

At the beginning of this year, I thought online teaching might have something going for it. After this year, and seeing the reactions of so many (good) staff and so many students, I’m convinced it’s a second-rate substitute for in-person teaching. [Online learning is] appropriate for those who can’t do in-person for whatever reason, but not ideal for those who can. I think my university should be deliberate and strategic about expanding its online offering moving forward instead of just saying, ‘Everything online AND in-person!’ That would be a total disaster, in my view. [Participant 85, Business & Management]

Online T&L and Practical Concerns

Many participants discussed practical concerns that surfaced after online T&L approaches had been implemented. Such concerns included having inaccurate estimates of the teaching workload and insufficient time, training, and resources for effective online T&L to take place.

I am concerned that we will be expected in future to make all courses available both online and face-to-face simultaneously when only being given workload credit for teaching face-to-face. There are separate iterations for online students but this semester we have been expected to make everything from our face-to-face iterations equally accessible online, which significantly increases workload and reduces options for pedagogical decision making (not everything that works well face-to-face translates easily to an online setting). [Participant 177, Education]

Although teachers reported having the basic training that is necessary to teach online, they did not have the time or resources to prepare and put those skills into practice.

Having been a campus manager for a [polytechnic institution], I appreciate the cost-savings for more distance-based learning. [...] From a teacher’s perspective, it requires a lot more hours to provide a similar level of support and this has yet to be recognised, especially in parity of pay. [Participant 9, Humanities]

You have to provide training and support staff instead of just saying ‘just do the same as your on-campus students.’ Staff also need the resources to carry out the extra hours and time to teach. [Participant 45, Support Services]

Participants had the opportunity in the questionnaire to add comments about the resources they would need for effective online T&L. These comments regarding resources fell into three main categories: (a) time, (b) hard- and software equipment, and (c) development and support. First, participants noted that to deliver quality online T&L experiences, they would need time to design and develop the courses. Participants made the distinction between online T&L and what was dubbed “emergency remote teaching.” Many participants noted that the demands on their time was already very high, and adding more responsibilities would not be sustainable. Time constraints were also noted as a barrier to professional development.

Second, it was noted that hardware and software resources were needed to provide good quality online T&L. In particular, video editing software was mentioned, as well as the (perceived) unsuitability of standard Learning Management Systems to deliver a quality online experience. One participant stated that access to e-books would be critical. Participants indicated that they would want to produce high-quality video materials rather than lecture recordings, which were considered a poor substitute. However, they noted that they did not always have the necessary hard- and software resources to do this.

Third, participants explained that they did not have the skills to create good online courses and resources and would like both professional development in that area. Again, expertise in video creation and editing were mentioned explicitly. Teachers mentioned that having relevant and timely guidance and support from educational development staff is important. They noted that they have not had training in online teaching and needed support in the pivot to online (or “emergency remote”) T&L. Comments were mixed on the quality of support received, with some lauding, and others noting a lack of, support received.

Online T&L and Pedagogical Concerns

Many participants commented that it was unrealistic for meaningful learning outcomes to be adequately met for certain courses and disciplines. Such attitudes were prominent among teachers who require students to complete laboratory activities, hands-on tasks, and field work. Specific disciplines that participants cited were nursing, laboratory science, medicine, and engineering. As one teacher commented: “Distance learning creates a second-rate degree in these subjects.”

In the general comments, two concerns were apparent. The first was a concern about online delivery of the practical components of a degree, such as fieldwork and placements. The second was a concern about senior leadership and institutional strategies toward online T&L. Senior leadership was, in some cases, perceived as beholden to political whims and educational trends. This included a focus on cost-cutting and student numbers rather than creating an effective learning environment for students and fostering staff well-being.

Online T&L and Poor Staff Wellbeing

Participants shared their experiences involving the abrupt shift to online T&L, and how this affected their health and mental health. One teacher described the extent of their struggle:

I’ve always thought that we should be encouraging more, not less, face-to-face instruction (even if it is supplemented with other modes), and COVID just rammed this home. Management seems very keen on following whatever trend has popped up. It’s not very reassuring. This year has been hard. It was only in Week 10 of our second semester that I thought ‘I really enjoyed teaching this week. It felt worthwhile.’ I wish students knew the impact on the wellbeing of staff. One of the biggest impacts on my own wellbeing this year is having put 300% more effort in with students, teaching, design, accessibility, and making things work well given the challenges, completely bending over backwards to the detriment of my own life, and feeling like [...] it’s met with utter indifference. It is horrible teaching people who see you, and education in general, as a burden, especially when you have to face students with warmth and good cheer (while also navigating all those other work pressures like research, admin, illness, home life, job uncertainty). [Participant 304, Humanities]

Associations Between TSE and Attitudes Toward Online Teaching

We performed bivariate correlations to inspect the associations among TSE on-campus, TSE online, and attitudes relating to online teaching. As shown in Table 3, we found that tertiary educators who possessed the training, time, and resources to create quality online learning experiences were also those with confidence in teaching online. Our results also reveal that the attitude that online teaching is appropriate for one’s discipline appears critical.

Table 3 Bivariate correlations between TSE and attitudes toward online T&L (n = 245)
Full size table

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to give tertiary educators in Aotearoa New Zealand an opportunity where they could anonymously share their experiences, needs, and attitudes toward online teaching & learning (T&L) in the wake of COVID-19. Although most participants described themselves as confident educators when teaching in a face-to-face environment, they reported comparatively low TSE when teaching online and held negative attitudes toward online T&L. These individuals also reported having poorer wellbeing and were concerned about the quality of learning experiences for their students. There were broad concerns around the (limited) ability to build meaningful relationships with learners when teaching online. These concerns are consistent with the international literature (Kaqinari et al., 2021; Saha et al., 2022); however, we argue that the social and cultural context of Aotearoa New Zealand warrants particular attention and action. Based on the participant comments, there is an apparent need for educators to have a deep understanding (and confidence in) fostering strong interpersonal relationships and promoting culturally-responsive T&L principles (e.g., manaakitanga and whanaungatanga) for online environments. Educators also expressed worry about the perceived limitations of online T&L for their respective disciplines and an inability to replicate in-person interactions. These kinds of experiences and initial attitudes may create deep-seated beliefs about online T&L, some of which may reduce educators’ willingness, enthusiasm, and flexibility to adopt online T&L approaches in the future.

Our findings signal three essential priorities for institutions and senior management teams to consider: (1) Providing educators with agency, autonomy, and flexibility over how to teach students in their respective courses and qualifications; (2) Equipping educators with high-quality online T&L resources, training, and professional development, and (3) Ensuring that educators’ workload is accurate if there are changes to online T&L delivery modes. We highlight these concerns and include recommendations so that educators can be empowered and support their students during a time of rapid change in tertiary education.

Priority 1: Providing Educators with Agency, Autonomy, and Flexibility Over How to Teach Students

Educators signalled distress about institutions’ top-down decision-making about whether courses should move online. In general, educators supported the expansion of online T&L in principle (e.g., having the potential to improve student accessibility and environmental sustainability). However, participants felt as though such expansion should not occur at a loss of on-campus offerings and must be done with research-based considerations rather than following economic and educational trends. Participants noted that moving a course online may necessitate changes in learning outcomes and assessment. These, in turn, can have implications for programme quality assurance and accreditation. Campus, online, and blended teaching each have their merits, drawbacks, affordances and limitations, and the appropriateness of each is course and discipline dependent.

Consequently, institutions must listen to educators from different disciplines and educational developers to ensure that delivery modes are appropriate for all involved. At the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis, online T&L was seen as an appropriate short-term emergency response, but with the pandemic still influencing tertiary education several years on, these stop-gap measures must evolve into semi-permanent structures to ensure long-term quality assurance of academic programmes. What an appropriate long-term solution would look like can only be decided in close consultation between educators across disciplines, educational developers, and senior leadership, rather than a unilateral decision.

Priority 2: High-Quality Online T&L Resources, Training, and Professional Development That Empower Tertiary Educators

It was evident that appropriate equipment and relevant, accessible online T&L training and professional development were urgently needed for tertiary teaching staff across Aotearoa New Zealand. Participants acknowledged that their institutions were required to shift online to “emergency remote teaching.” However, it is now critical for governments and institutions to provide strategic direction for both short-term crisis responses and longer-term recovery toward a (new) business-as-usual approach to tertiary education, in consultation with teachers and educational developers. This will allow the education community to consolidate and develop targeted resources to support T&L in the “new normal,” and add strategic value, rather than just operational value, to an institution. This will help ensure that educator needs and wishes around professional development are met, namely:

  • Timely and proactive, rather than serving only as last-minute fixes;

  • Continual, rather than one-off opportunities;

  • Rooted in evidence-based practices, rather than educational trends;

  • Focused on competency-building and empowering educators, rather than ticking boxes;

  • Tailored to certain kinds of T&L activities, assessments, and disciplines rather than generic and one-size-fits-all; and

  • Culturally responsive.

In terms of institutional resources, educators need relevant and user-friendly software and hardware to be successful with online T&L. Decisions around educational technology, in particular enterprise-level systems are often made at a senior leadership level. This brings a risk of having a focus on equipment and license costs whilst overlooking the hidden costs in staff time and longer-term effects on student outcomes.

Educators were worried about their ability to create meaningful social encounters for students when teaching and learning online. This topic signalled a degree of frustration, as educators—including those who were confident teachers in general—expressed that their job was not just to disseminate knowledge but to know their students, build relationships, and facilitate collaboration. Dedicated teachers anchor their identities around supporting students; as such, the feeling as though one is under-serving their students and compromising the quality of a degree would lead to demoralisation and stress. Furthermore, co-constructing knowledge through meaningful interactions is a priority that should not be overlooked as it has major social and cultural implications for the broader tertiary sector in Aotearoa New Zealand. The Tertiary Education Act and Treaty of Waitangi require teaching to be culturally-responsive, and concepts such as manaakitanga (ethic of care) and whanaungatanga (relationships, community) are seen as integral to a supportive learning environment and student success. Translating these concepts from campus to an online environment is something the educators in this study indicated they struggled with doing successfully. This is an opportunity for professional development, and focusing on evidence-based literature that provides teachers with social development skills in their courses would be a critical step forward. It is unlikely that teachers will feel positive about online T&L unless this hurdle is overcome.

Priority 3: Accurately Account for Online T&L in Staff Workloads

Educators in this study expressed concerns regarding workload. In some situations, staff were asked to “do the same thing but online”, which failed to understand the amount of work involved to design, prepare, deliver and assess quality courses and modules online. There were considerable issues with regard to staff wellbeing, and health/safety risks emerged as a result. Though in 2020, the switch to online teaching was abrupt due to the emergency situation, staff workload issues are still present at the time of writing this article. Participant commentaries emphasised the need for institutions to plan properly and allow enough time for online T&L to not only be done but done well. Workload, stress, and reduced teaching efficacy on top of the stress of lockdowns and COVID-19, in general, have imposed on personal and professional lives. These can have significant medium and long-term staff wellbeing repercussions, with increased risks of burnout, absenteeism, and turnover.

Limitations

Several limitations should be addressed in future research. First, the sample includes only tertiary educators in Aotearoa New Zealand, and the application of our findings to other countries should be considered with appropriate caution. For example, sampling bias could be an issue if participants who were experiencing a particularly difficult time pivoting to online teaching were more likely to participate in the study and voice their concerns. Moreover, governmental decisions have shaped how tertiary institutions in Aotearoa New Zealand operate, including the finances that have helped (and potentially hindered) tertiary T&L during the public health crisis. Therefore, it would be useful for researchers to consider the national and cultural context in which the current findings are described. Second, our sample includes participants from a range of institutions and disciplines; however, it is plausible that we have not covered the breadth of attitudes and opinions of all individuals, cohorts, and types of tertiary institutions within Aotearoa New Zealand. Throughout this article, we have attempted to avoid making overly-generalised conclusions about participant experiences. Further research should be conducted to strengthen participant voice. Third, it is important to highlight that the quantitative analyses conducted in this study are correlational, not causal. We have strived to present the findings in a manner that assumes such dynamics as reciprocal. We encourage researchers to draw on multiple methodologies to strengthen our collective understanding of these phenomena.

Conclusion

By listening to the experiences of and suggestions by educators, institutions can work toward constructive, systemic change in tertiary T&L. As we present in the current study, educators have a wealth of opinions, attitudes, and recommendations for online T&L–all of which should be at the forefront of decision-making in the tertiary sector. A one-size-fits-all approach to online T&L does not seem to be a realistic one. We encourage teachers and senior management to create authentic dialogue. This involves thinking critically about their goals, intentions, and impacts of tertiary education on society, as well as drawing on quality educational research to carry out the best ways to support their students, families, and communities. This dialogue will help tertiary institutions better prepare educators for online T&L in public health and environmental emergencies, unexpected crises in general, and in the wake of these circumstances.